Carlisle Adams wrote:
Hi Blake,
----------
From: Blake Ramsdell[SMTP:BlakeR(_at_)deming(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 3:46 AM
To: 'dpkemp(_at_)missi(_dot_)ncsc(_dot_)mil';
'ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org'
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-smime-crs-00.txt
If there are problems with CMP then we should fix them. Coming up with
a new protocol is fun, but I think it fragments the effort. I will read
the CRS spec more closely to find out what the differences are, but I
think that CMP can be fixed to satisfy our needs. From my
understanding, CMP is in last call, but I really think we should fix it
right, and I think that "right" means fixing CMP if it is broken and
can't be used for S/MIME.
PKIX-CMP is actually past both WG and IETF-wide Last Call; it is
currently pending IESG vote at their next teleconference (which will
take place shortly after Washington, I believe).
I don't know of anything that would make CMP unsuitable for S/MIME, but
please do have a look and let me know as soon as possible. If you find
anything within the next few days we may be able to get changes in
(providing that it doesn't affect PKIX understanding/use of the
protocol, of course).
See you in Washington!
--------------------------------------------
Carlisle Adams
Entrust Technologies
cadams(_at_)entrust(_dot_)com
--------------------------------------------
Does CMP being in the "currently pending IESG vote" stage mean
that the PKIX standard version that mixes ANY DEFINED BY and
BMPString to create invalid ASN.1 definitions is to approved
as a standard?
Phil
--
Phillip H. Griffin Griffin Consulting
asn1(_at_)mindspring(_dot_)com ASN.1-SET-Java-Security
919.828.7114 1625 Glenwood Avenue
919.832.7008 [mail] Raleigh, North Carolina 27608 USA
------------------------------------------------------------
Visit http://www.fivepointsfestival.com
------------------------------------------------------------